6. Generally speaking, the most ardent opposers of creeds and confessions have been latitudinarians, if not heretics.
This is not to say that the use of creeds or confessions has never been opposed by people who were substantially orthodox. But it is to say that such a rejection of the use of creeds and confessions is a relatively recent circumstance. We have no example of it in earlier church history. Neither is this to say that heretics have not formed and maintain their own corrupt creeds. Church history abounds with examples of this as well. But what we are asserting is this, as a general fact the most ardent and loud opponents of creeds have been those who held corrupt opinions. This should not strike us as a fortuitous occurrence. This is exactly what we should expect. This is exactly what the underlying principle should logically develop into.
In the early 19th century, the loudest opponent of the use of creeds and confessions was the denomination of the Unitarians. Is it any wonder that those who hold doctrines which are demonstrably un-scriptural should refuse to accept a formula which tends to make visible the line of distinction between truth and error? It has often been observed that men are seldom found to oppose creeds until the creeds and become opposed to them.
If we look a little into church history, especially within the last 200 years we find this strikingly exemplified. Whenever we find a group of men beginning to slide away from orthodoxy, they generally try to conceal their fall by speaking against creeds and confessions. And that is because it is these documents that will expose how far they have deviated from sound doctrine.